WASHINGTON, D.C. August 4, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) –“Who is John G. Roberts Jr., really?” asks freelance journalist Paul Green in a recent column printed on GodSpy.com. And that, it seems, is precisely the same question forming on more and more lips these days, and not just those of liberals and Democrats.
“There’s a lot of people saying things about [Roberts], negative and positive,” observed American Life League President Judi Brown, “and frankly, I’ve read everything that he’s said, and I’m very confused about where he stands. I have no idea.”
Although many conservatives have come out lauding president Bush for what many have called “brilliant” politicizing, in nominating a “stealth” candidate who Democrats can’t seem to find a spot of dirt on, an increasing number of conservatives are giving voice to a nagging discomfiture with the choice. As Robert’s continues to employ his lawyerly avoid-all-questions, give-no-answers tactics, many conservatives are questioning what appears to be a deliberate and unnecessary downplaying of Robert’s purported conservatism by the Bush administration. American Values director Gary Bauer says the “stealth strategy” the White House is using to try to hide Judge Roberts conservativism is “exactly the wrong way to go.”
Popular journalist Anne Coulter has largely led the posse of noncommittal skeptics. “Let’s ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial,” said Coulter in a July 20th column. “That’s just unnatural…It’s especially unnatural for someone who is smart, and there’s no question but that Roberts is smart.”
Coulter continued her critique of Bush’s nomination saying, “If the Senate were in Democrat hands, Roberts would be perfect. But why on earth would Bush waste a nomination on a person who is a complete blank slate when we have a majority in the Senate!”
And there is no doubt that Roberts is pretty much a blank slate. Although most of his jurisprudential language mirrors that of a true constructionist and conservative, he has been muddying the waters in the last few days. Besides distancing himself from any involvement with the constructionist Federalist Society, Roberts has come out strongly in support of Supreme Court “precedent”, a topic of great interest since Roe V. Wade has become the central gauge of this particular Court nomination.
“Precedent plays an important role in promoting the stability of the legal system,” said Roberts, in statements obviously constructed to appease his leftist critics who believe that Roberts would overturn Roe V. Wade if confirmed.
Not only that, worrisome information has come to the surface that while working with the Horgan & Hartson law firm, Roberts performed pro bono work for gay rights activists, offering his legal expertise in a Supreme Court case and ultimately assisting the gay rights movement to achieve what Suzanne Goldberg, a lawyer with a gay-rights legal service, called the “single most important positive ruling in the history of the gay rights movement.”
“John Roberts…was just terrifically helpful in meeting with me and spending some time on the issue,” said Jean Dubofsky, the lead lawyer for the gay rights activists in that court case.
Of course the Los Angeles Times points out that this is perfectly in character for Roberts, who had also signed briefs arguing for the overturn of Roe V. Wade in his capacity as a lawyer for the initial Bush administration. “Roberts’ work on behalf of gay rights activists, whose cause is anathema to many conservatives, appears to illustrate his allegiance to the credo of the legal profession:” said the Times, “to zealously represent the interests of the client, whoever it might be.” Roberts has continually distanced himself from any written legal opinions given in his capacity as a lawyer arguing the position of his client.
The real cause for concern, according to a number of commentators, is that other “stealth” candidates nominated by Republican administrations, most notably Justice David Souter, have developed voting records distinctly liberal and anti-life. “Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever,” said Coulter in a column titled “Souter in Roberts’ Clothing”.
Most of the professed skeptics, however, including Coulter, add to their remarks the caveat that by all accounts Roberts actually may turn out to be everything that conservatives wish him to be; but right now, it’s anybody’s guess.
jj